United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
F. Cox U.S. District Judge.
Mitchell, who is presently confined at the Carson City
Correctional Facility has filed a pro se civil
rights complaint. He names fifteen defendants, all of whom
are employed by the Michigan Department of Corrections
(“MDOC”). For the reasons stated below, the Court
will summarily dismiss the complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) for Plaintiff's
failure to state a claim.
Standard of Review
the Prison Litigation Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110
Stat. 1321 (1996) (PLRA), the Court is required to dismiss
any prisoner action brought under federal law if the
complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief
from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(e)(2), 1915A; 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c).
The Court must read plaintiff's pro se complaint
indulgently, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520
(1972), and accept plaintiff's allegations as true,
unless they are clearly irrational or wholly incredible.
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992).
complaint names fifteen defendants: (1) MDOC Director Heidi
Washington, (2) Assistant Deputy Warden Greason, (3) Prison
Counselor Ms. V. Hinorosa, (4) Residential Unit Manager Mr.
Kinner, (5) Assistant Residential Unit Manager Mr. Rushing,
(6) Grievance Coordinator Ms. Taylor, (7) Hearing Officer Mr.
M. Szappan, (8) Corrections Officer Turner, (9) Corrections
Officer Dill, (10) Corrections Officer Dancy, (11) Mental
Health Specialist Mr. Levine, (12) Corrections Officer
Edwards, (13) Residential Unit Manager Ms. Grant, (14) Warden
Warren, and (15) MDOC Deputy Director Rapelje.
claims that on November 2, 2018, while he was housed at the
Macomb Correctional Facility, he was taken to the segregation
unit by defendants Turner, Dancy, and Edwards. He asserts
these officers failed to secure his cell door, which allowed
another inmate to remove his television from his cell.
plaintiff returned to his unit and loudly demanded to know
who stole his television, another inmate said that he did it,
but that plaintiff told the guards he would be killed.
Defendant Turner heard the commotion and asked plaintiff what
was wrong. Plaintiff informed Turner of the prisoner who took
his television, and Turner retrieved and returned it to
Turner informed plaintiff that the prisoner would be given a
ticket for stealing, Plaintiff complained that the prisoner
was a member of the “Blood Gang” and that the
gang would get him for snitching.
requested that Turner place him in protective custody. Turner
contacted defendant Rushing regarding the request. Rushing
told Turner that the facility did not have protective
custody, and so Turner ordered plaintiff to return to his
cell. Plaintiff refused and was placed in administrative
segregation for failing to comply with a direct order.
that day, plaintiff was taken before a security
classification committee comprised of defendants Hinorosa,
Kinner, Levine, and Greason. Plaintiff again complained about
the threat made by the other prisoner, but he was again
informed by Greason that the facility did not offer
protective custody. Plaintiff was given another direct order
to return to his unit.
asserts that he filed a grievance regarding the issue on
November 4, 2018, but defendant Taylor refused to process or
November 9, 2018, Plaintiff was found guilty of disobeying a
direct order by defendant Szappan and given seven days in the
“hole” and ten days loss of privileges. Plaintiff
filed a grievance asserting that the facility was in effect